Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013 Jun;121(6):1263-1271.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31829006d9.

Tubal factor infertility and perinatal risk after assisted reproductive technology

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Tubal factor infertility and perinatal risk after assisted reproductive technology

Jennifer F Kawwass et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun.

Abstract

Objective: To assess trends of tubal factor infertility and to evaluate risk of miscarriage and delivery of preterm or low birth weight (LBW) neonates among women with tubal factor infertility using assisted reproductive technology (ART).

Methods: We assessed trends of tubal factor infertility among all fresh and frozen, donor, and nondonor ART cycles performed annually in the United States between 2000 and 2010 (N=1,418,774) using the National ART Surveillance System. The data set was then limited to fresh, nondonor in vitro fertilization cycles resulting in pregnancy to compare perinatal outcomes for cycles associated with tubal compared with male factor infertility. We performed bivariate and multivariable analyses controlling for maternal characteristics and calculated adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: The percentage of ART cycles associated with tubal factor infertility diagnoses decreased from 2000 to 2010 (26.02-14.81%). Compared with male factor infertility, tubal factor portended an increased risk of miscarriage (14.0% compared with 12.7%, adjusted RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.12); risk was increased for both early and late miscarriage. Singleton neonates born to women with tubal factor infertility had an increased risk of preterm birth (15.8% compared with 11.6%, adjusted RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.20-1.34) and LBW (10.9% compared with 8.5%, adjusted RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.20-1.36). Significant increases in risk persisted for early and late preterm delivery and very low and moderately LBW delivery. A significantly elevated risk was also detected for twin, but not triplet, pregnancies.

Conclusion: Tubal factor infertility, which is decreasing in prevalence in the United States, is associated with an increased risk of miscarriage, preterm birth, and LBW delivery as compared with couples with male factor infertility using ART.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Trends over time in tubal factor infertility among all women undergoing assisted reproductive technology, including fresh and frozen, donor, and nondonor cycles, 2000–2010. Gestational carriers excluded. Kawwass. Perinatal Risk After ART in Tubal Factor Infertility. Obstet Gynecol 2013.

Comment in

References

    1. Miller JH, Weinberg RK, Canino NL, Klein NA, Soules MR. The pattern of infertility diagnoses in women of advanced reproductive age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:952–7. - PubMed
    1. Andersen AN, Yue Z, Meng FJ, Petersen K. Low implantation rate after in-vitro fertilization in patients with hydrosalpinges diagnosed by ultrasonography. Hum Reprod. 1994;9:1935–8. - PubMed
    1. Camus E, Poncelet C, Goffinet F, Wainer B, Merlet F, Nisand I, et al. Pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization in cases of tubal infertility with and without hydrosalpinx: a meta-analysis of published comparative studies. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1243–9. - PubMed
    1. Strandell A, Waldenstrom U, Nilsson L, Hamberger L. Hydrosalpinx reduces in-vitro fertilization/embryo transfer pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod. 1994;9:861–3. - PubMed
    1. Vandromme J, Chasse E, Lejeune B, Van Rysselberge M, Delvigne A, Leroy F. Hydrosalpinges in in-vitro fertilization: an unfavourable prognostic feature. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:576–9. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms